<div dir="ltr">I know, I wasn't suggesting taking a reference to it. It was more about the idea of using anonymous types to fill in string-object dictionaries. If the RabbitMQ client would use that, it would have it's own RabbitValueDictionary or something.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Matthias Radestock <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matthias@rabbitmq.com" target="_blank">matthias@rabbitmq.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Nathan,<div class="im"><br>
<br>
On 20/07/13 21:10, Nathan Brown wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
One thing I thought of was since then is that because most of the<br>
dictionaries are <string, object> configuration parameters and ASP.Net<br>
MVC has a similar case and they use a RouteValueDictionary type which<br>
has a constructor that can build the dictionary from anonymous types<br>
(<a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc680272.aspx" target="_blank">http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-<u></u>us/library/cc680272.aspx</a>). That might be<br>
handy to add if passing configurations through dictionaries is common in<br>
user code.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
RouteValueDictionary is in System.Web.Routing, which doesn't really fit the usage in the rabbit client.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Matthias.<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>